a question to US gun owners.

[Beavis]

very true, but that stock gets you pretty close.

Well shit, time to get me one!

---------- Post added 2012-08-25 at 09:26 PM ----------

Because 100% gun ownership is never going to happen.

/snip

Yeah, I remember seeing some documentary on Army special forces in Afghanistan where some grizzled master sergeant was saying that the biggest problem they have dealing with locals in Afghanistan is getting them to understand that they don't need to solve all their problems with bullets. He wasn't even talking about the Taliban, either. He was talking about the farmer who decided to deal with his neighbor's goat noshing on his crops by blasting it with a 37mm anti-aircraft gun.

I'm all for gun rights, but the notion of unlimited ownership of any kind of weapon is complete insanity. That being said, how much of the gun trouble in Somalia, AfPak, Venezuela, etc are rule of law problems?

[Verain]

I've always been of the opinion that bump firing is just a trick, but that's an aces video there- that looks hella fun.

I don't own a long gun yet, but it's on my list of things to get eventually!

[Amsden]

well seeing a video the other day which shoed a guy holding a gun(smg i think)and walking down the road till police stopped him(which was obviously a bait to make police act extreme but unfortunatelly for him the police officer was smarter than him)
I want to ask...why not make gun laws Draconian.Since you take it for protection why not make those laws quite hard on people that brake them and the requirements at a big level...i mean if i had guns in my home i would surelly be pro-gun control because i wouldnt like any weirdo having an armory in his house...IF you guys are honest law abiding citizens hard gun controling laws wont make a diference right?

Also another question,why do you actually need AK-47 or machine guns,i mean i can undersatnd having a handgun or a shotgun but machine guns?Isnt that a bit extreme?

this is not a troll post i really like to see the reasoning behind this culture.So if someone only has to say "derp derp derp gun is bad" or "derp derp derp gun is good"please dont respond.I want answers from seemingly regular joes with guns.

Making guns harder to get is fine, at least in my opinion. The problem is when people (on both sides of the argument) confuse control with ban.
So.
Control = fine.
Ban = no.

[Verain]

Any form of gun control is unacceptable. It will be used as a slippery slope by politicians and judges. Gun registration preceeds mass confiscation. Expensive gimmicks don't save lives, don't prevent crime, and only drive up the costs of guns, preventing low income families from having protection, while making no difference.

Gun Control is just what the gun grabbers use because the second amendment stops them from mass confiscation. Look no further than the UK to see what "gun control" turns into.

[Beavis]

Any form of gun control is unacceptable. It will be used as a slippery slope by politicians and judges. Gun registration preceeds mass confiscation. Expensive gimmicks don't save lives, don't prevent crime, and only drive up the costs of guns, preventing low income families from having protection, while making no difference.

Gun Control is just what the gun grabbers use because the second amendment stops them from mass confiscation. Look no further than the UK to see what "gun control" turns into.

That's silly. We've had gun control in this country for almost 80 years. If anything, the current trend is towards greater liberalization of gun laws.

[Verain]

Because 100% gun ownership is never going to happen.

True, but it's a smooth progression of improvement up to and including it.

You honestly expect my grandmother to get one? Or what about my 5'2", 105lbs cousin?

Maybe not, but they would certainly be able to defend themselves, and they trivially cannot right now, even versus an unarmed attacker.

Rule of the gun prevails. The armed get their way over the unarmed.

No one is advocating that.

And thus those with guns will quickly begin to throw their weight around against the unarmed.

Why doesn't that happen today? We see nothing like that.

It's the same damn thing and it's happened across cultural lines. Venezuela wasn't even particularly dangerous 20 years ago. About 5 years ago Hugo Chavez ordered a shipment of half a million AK-47s to his poor supporters to "protect the revolution" and keep the peace.

Not the bold, italicized part. Maybe the fact that Venezuela is essentially under a revolutionary leader, and is perhaps debateably actually in the middle of a civil war, might be more relevant than one shipment of AK-47s?

People, once unarmed, now heavily armed, use their guns to do whatever they want. And now the situation is out of control.

That situation has nothing to do with guns. Venezuela, for instance, has a fraction of the guns per person that the US does. But hey, lets watch them. Their tyrant just banned all private gun ownership. Stuff should clear up there real fast now, right?

You have your 2nd Amendment. That's it. Constitution also counted black people as 3/5ths a white male land owner for a good 75 years.

Yes, these two things are fully comparable. Both are rights outlined in a bill against federal expansion of power, for instance. And there's obviously a huge majority of Americans that were and are in favor of changing both.

Wait. No. That's the opposite of true.

where everyone from twelve year olds to grandmothers wields pistols and revolvers like a goddamn sword?

Well, I don't think anyone is in favor if giving your grandmother a sword- takes a lot of practice to use one, and a decent amount of physical stuff she might not have anymore. But a pistol she might be able to handle, especially a small caliber. Make her safer!



The funny part is that you are a guild master of a guild named Tyranny, and are in favor of citizens having no recourse, no defense, against those with greater numbers or natural strength. Funny joke!

[damntree]

They're not allowed. Civilians are not permitted to own automatic weapons such as those. The M16 that the Army uses, and an M16 that you can buy at a gun shop are functionally very different, specifically, military versions can fire burst and full-auto, while citizen versions are strictly semi-auto (one trigger pull = one bullet).

It's funny because most soldiers in the Army are carrying an M16-A2 which doesn't have full auto just 3-round burst/semi. Typically the only guy in your team with full auto is the guy with the SAW.

[vaeevictiss]

They're not allowed. Civilians are not permitted to own automatic weapons such as those. The M16 that the Army uses, and an M16 that you can buy at a gun shop are functionally very different, specifically, military versions can fire burst and full-auto, while citizen versions are strictly semi-auto (one trigger pull = one bullet).

actually any non felon (well in a state that allows it) can own any fully automatic weapon as long as it was made before 1986.

[Themius]

actually any non felon (well in a state that allows it) can own any fully automatic weapon as long as it was made before 1986.

1986 guns hurt less than post 1986 guns. So it's acceptable.

[Deleted]

Any form of gun control is unacceptable. It will be used as a slippery slope by politicians and judges. Gun registration preceeds mass confiscation. Expensive gimmicks don't save lives, don't prevent crime, and only drive up the costs of guns, preventing low income families from having protection, while making no difference.

Gun Control is just what the gun grabbers use because the second amendment stops them from mass confiscation. Look no further than the UK to see what "gun control" turns into.

yea look to the uk where hgun related homicides are 40 times less than america

[Deathcries]

I have to respectfully disagree with you , atleast on the merit of your argument.

The fact that a criminal has (easy) access to weaponry does in no way warrant 'law abiding' citizens to have them.If this reasoning was followed thered be a wide range of problems that could never be solved. Also, I read an alarmingly high number of cases where the criminal shoots the law abiding citizen with the law abiding citizens gun, not saying im an expert on this but it seams feasable enough for me to bring it up.

While I doubt there are billions of ak style weapons ( unless you mean assault rifles then maybe wed probably reach the billion mark) their presence in the world wouldnt mean that they are all piled up in america. The kalashnikov is a cheap mans' all terrain unbreakable weapon which makes it perfectly suitable for every bushwhack militia or african dictator wannabe.

And as stated above, not even the average criminal ( which is pretty stupid) is stupid enough to drive around with an smg/assault rifle , especially when pistols and the likes are legal..

Personally im pro gun control; people that use them for relaxation can go to the shooting club and use a wide range of weaponry there (theres some hella awesome sniper rifles at the club near me) whilst people with ill intent wont have access to weaponry ( people in an emotional state can do the craziest thing .. all it takes is a short moment )

So far making drugs illegal has worked wonders here in America. You never see drugs being used here, because they're illegal. Also they have been illegal since Nixon got in office. Do you see where I'm going with this?

---------- Post added 2012-08-26 at 09:52 AM ----------

yea look to the uk where hgun related homicides are 40 times less than america

How much more is rape, robberies, and your recent riots have been in the UK compared to say America? Oh Snap.

[vaeevictiss]

yea look to the uk where hgun related homicides are 40 times less than america

those numbers are grossly skewed due to the fact no other nation has the amount of DEFENSIVE shootings like the US does. Even when police kill a perp it is still counted towards the inflated handgun homicide bubble.

[haxartus]

those numbers are grossly skewed due to the fact no other nation has the amount of DEFENSIVE shootings like the US does. Even when police kill a perp it is still counted towards the inflated handgun homicide bubble.

Which means that these defensive shootings are unnecessary. Most of the criminals don't want to kill you, they want to steal your TV.

[Themius]

So far making drugs illegal has worked wonders here in America. You never see drugs being used here, because they're illegal. Also they have been illegal since Nixon got in office. Do you see where I'm going with this?

---------- Post added 2012-08-26 at 09:52 AM ----------



How much more is rape, robberies, and your recent riots have been in the UK compared to say America? Oh Snap.

Rape.

0.0301% will be raped in America. 0.024% in England AND Wales. So America loses on the rape front.

0.119% in America will be robbed. I can't find numbers for the uk on this. but it's slightly higher than America.

[Extrazero8]

Which means that these defensive shootings are unnecessary. Most of the criminals don't want to kill you, they want to steal your TV.

How would someone know the difference between a criminal that just wants to take their TV, one that wants to kill them, and one that will kill the people in the home for interrupting their criminal activities? Also why should people not be allowed to protect their belongings?

[Deatheryn]

The problem with strict laws on guns is actually a simple one for the US at least. What you do is make it harder for law abbiding citizens to get the weapons they have the right to own vs. a criminal that will steal them or buy them illegally and use them in a crime. See you will never "get rid of" guns from a world standpoint. Last time I checked there are currently in the billions of AK style rifles in circulation world wide. Criminals will always get guns and if they are in the US it will be done in an illegal manner.

So if you look at it like this, a criminal (felon or what ever) that buys guns does so now illegally. So gun laws being strict do not effect him at all.

Exactly, I myself own no guns but I could travel 5 minutes away and secure a illegal firearm w/in a half an hour if I so choose but if takes a law abiding citizen a minimum of 3 days to buy one legally. The people that use guns in crimes would have to be pretty stupid to have it registered in their own name! It does happen but far less frequently than the use of "Throwaways" a.k.a. stolen/illegal guns.